plodding

Plot plods along, reading like an authors back story. Minimal social interaction. Hopefully the next book is better.

9 people found this helpful

Confusion

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

The story was disjointed and confusing ,perhaps if I had the book in hard copy I could easily refer to the story and characters and keep things in order

What was most disappointing about Eric Flint and David Weber ’s story?

Loss of characters and no easy way to return to find them

Would you listen to another book narrated by George Guidall?

Yes George is a fine narrator and does well with the story. I am going listen to the book again in couple of weeks , I will pay very close attention to the story hopefully it will be better the second time around

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

confusion and disapointment

Any additional comments?

Hopefully this makes sense to some one
Regards Ken Arndt

8 people found this helpful

First Novel sets an Expectation - This Does NOT

1633 sees a major disparity in the personalities and actions of the characters from the original novel.

Everyone seems very concerned with liberating the medieval population. I wouldn't have gone this way and find it unacceptable to see the characters all shift toward this 'spread the gospel of socialism' angle. Consider the modern knowledge of the destruction of the planet.... These confused modern personnel are going to speed up the strip mining of the planet to empower the existing monarchical power structure to industry. It is garbage. If the author wants to tear it up, at least align the personalities to tear up history in a uniform manner.

The history is fantastic and the writing is good, but the characters divergence toward what I can only feel is Communist methodologies doesn't sit well with me. They are from the US South! Predominantly conservative by demographics....

Loved the first novel. Can't sit through this anymore.

6 people found this helpful

Slow!,

Is there anything you would change about this book?

This book has an interesting, yet confusing, start. The premise is kind of fun, but my goodness is it slow moving. While I love good character development, this goes overboard!
You need to be very patient, and you may not be standing by the end (that is if you make it).

Would you ever listen to anything by Eric Flint and David Weber again?

I really like Weber, and will continue to read his stuff. This is not altogether unheard of for him. His books tend to be long with some overdeveloped characters.

Would you listen to another book narrated by George Guidall?

Yes

Was 1633 worth the listening time?

No

10 people found this helpful

Big Mistake

I made a big mistake when I bought this (it was on sale) before listening to the first book in this series, "1632." That book was only so-so and if I'd listened to it first, I would NOT have purchased this one.

This one, "1633," was mind-numbingly dull most of the time. I enjoyed listening to about 10% of it (primarily the action scenes). The rest was torture because I was NOT interested in the boring descriptions and LONG, dull conversations. I almost quit MANY times, but then something briefly interesting would happen and I (foolishly) kept slogging on.

I do NOT recommend this for anyone who is not fascinated by 17th Century European politics, military tactics, religions, culture and philosophy. If you're not a fan of the history, much of what is discussed will be of zero interest to you.

Much of the "story" is actually thinly disguised lectures by the author about how society and politics SHOULD be.

The plot was lacking, as well. Minor spoiler example: the Americans have an expert sniper. They had no problem in "1632" having her shoot enemy officers & leaders. Yet they ignore the obvious solution to virtually all of the problems they're facing in "1633" -- have her assassinate Cardinal Richelieu. It would be ridiculously easy, and save countless lives.

The narration was excellent, but this was the worst story I've listened to.

14 people found this helpful

It's alright... mostly.

Bringing in Weber in on this to an extent helped. The 1632 series has serious issues as it pertains to having a significantly interesting premise but with a lackluster at best follow through on that premise. This is a ponderous novel, and Guidall's performance of it is weaker than the one he gives in delivering 1632.

Flint has a good concept in the story premise, but his lionizing of individuals like Oliver Cromwell in addition to other justifications only exasperate the other failings of his prose, and makes even worse his shoddy character development. The inclusion of Weber's portions of the novels gives us a look finally at people, characters who are not shallow authorial inserts, or mary sues. These contributions set up quite well to 1634, and are the high point of the story.

From these high points however you have to wade through the vast amount of schlock Flint heaps out on the listener from his soapbox as it relates to his poor understanding, or perhaps willful ignorance, of political and military history of the period. The white washing of Cromwell is simply the most egregious one, though the socio-political behavior the various Germans likewise is a huge detriment to this story, as his treatment of the female characters who are often portrayed as idols with only superficial depth in the orbit of their spouses. [My god, there was a complaint I never thought I'd ever find myself leveling against someone with any seriousness]

In my opinion Flint's execution of the story in part highlights when it was written. The biggest improvement from this novel from the first one, is the inclusion of fellow Baen author Weber (though I admit Weber brings his own issues to the novel, and it could have done to be shorter). In all honesty Flint could have skipped the entire English story line plot [left it in an anthology or what not and it would have helped alleviate some of the problems present]. Another improvement in the story is we get less of MIKE STEARNS! AUTHORIAL INSERT AND UNION PRESIDENT!, which is a distinct plus.

Again the single largest issue with Flint's writing is not his prose, its the way he handles characters. The ring of fire as a mechanism seems cold and logical compared to the sheer absurdity to how various characters act. Never mind the outright creepy overtones it occasionally drifts into. Weber just handles characters better, though his prose is almost as stifling to wade through at times.

3 people found this helpful

great concept, but...

SO much time is spent listening to the characters debate logistical issues that the story and characters get lost in the minutiae

6 people found this helpful

Disappointing follow up.

Where does 1633 rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

Middle of the road, which is disappointing when compared to the first book of the series.

If you’ve listened to books by Eric Flint and David Weber before, how does this one compare?

A very poor follow up to 1632, which to me was one of the best audiobooks I've listened to.

6 people found this helpful

Awesome second book!

I loved 1632 and 1633 is just as good! It picks up where the first left off and does a great job of weaving a couple story lines together. It has triumphs and sadness in a great ratio. I just love the idea of an American revolution in the middle of 1630’s Europe it is a fascinating time with so much happening.

1 person found this helpful

1632 was a better year than 1633

This is the sequel to the incredibly popular 1632 (see separate review), which has spawned an entire community of writers who have expanded this alternative history into an enterprise of remarkable proportions (all of these books and the materials on the web site are collaborations, which does lead to some unevenness of writing). The sequel has all of the same strengths of the first book (solid work on the history, great concept, snappy writing, excellent performance by Guidall), but sadly it has the same faults, which actually become magnified here. The events are even more predictable, the characters are even more stereotypical, and there just isn’t anything to provoke thought or even surprise, especially if you already know something about the actual history of the period. It does tie up a few loose ends from the first novel, but at its conclusion there is no doubt where it’s all going. The first book, 1632 was worth the time, but for me at least, 1633 really wasn’t. I'd give it 2.5 stars if I could for story.

6 people found this helpful